Subject: Re: [sipcore] Status of Priority registry

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 19:05:47 -0500

On 12/13/12 10:02 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What is the status of the Priority header field registry?
>
> As the request for a registration template was withdrawn, and there was
> not a decision (AFAIK) to define the existing 3261 values, are there any
> other issues which prevents the draft from being moved forward?
>
> Or, has it already been moved forward? :)

Sorry for not announcing results before.

The period for the simultaneous call for adoption and WGLC completed.
There was consensus to adopt.

The only significant issue that I saw wrt WGLC was whether there should 
be an IANA registration prototype. That was proposed by Christer, and he 
subsequently withdrew that proposal. The only other person arguing in 
favor of that was Keith.

IMO we have consensus to consider this document complete as written 
after being renamed as a WG draft.

Keith - please let me know if you have serious objection to this.

Adam has informed me that he will post a WG version asap - hopefully 
tomorrow. Once he has done this we will inform ecrit so they can 
appropriately reference the new draft.

I plan to forward this on to our AD shortly.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 01:25:02 +0100

Go back and read the messages - Christer proposed a template, I objected to a template, and Christer withdrew the proposal.

As the justification for not needing it is that we have a registration policy that requires an RFC, we'd only need to revisit this if we changed the registration policy to something more relaxed.

The other issues was the updates or not, and the AD has spoken on this one (in that it does update).

Regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Paul Kyzivat
> Sent: 14 December 2012 00:06
> To: Christer Holmberg
> Cc: SIPCORE
> Subject: Re: [sipcore] Status of Priority registry
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:34:19 -0500

> The other issues was the updates or not, and the AD has spoken on this one (in that it does update).

OK, sorry.
So there is no disagreement at all now. Good.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: James Polk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:01:39 -0600

At 06:05 PM 12/13/2012, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>The only significant issue that I saw wrt WGLC was whether there 
>should be an IANA registration prototype. That was proposed by 
>Christer, and he subsequently withdrew that proposal. The only other 
>person arguing in favor of that was Keith.

so my proposal on Nov 13th is going to be ignored or was deemed less 
than significant...

<mumble>

James

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:05:08 -0500

> so my proposal on Nov 13th is going to be ignored or was deemed less

I'm sorry James. I forgot about that one.

That got wound up in the discussion of whether we were going to update 
the definitions of each of the values defined in 3261. We ultimately 
decided not to do that *in this draft* - that if we want to do that it 
can be a separate (and more controversial) effort.

I did forget to mention that in the shepherd writeup. I perhaps should 
submit an updated one to include that issue.

	Thanks,
	Paul